On Obama’s Plan, a Message Emerges in Israel: Stay Quiet By JODI RUDOREN and ISABEL KERSHNER Published: September 1, 2013

Israel’s ministers of defense and
international affairs, who spoke out repeatedly last week, stayed silent on
Sunday. Another member of Israel’s security cabinet canceled a news briefing
scheduled for Monday, citing the delicate situation. Mr. Netanyahu himself
issued a brief, bland statement saying Israel was “calm,” “self-assured” and
“prepared for any scenario” before moving on to innocuous matters like wishing
the world’s Jews a “good and blessed year.”

Behind closed doors, Mr. Netanyahu
told his cabinet on Sunday that the situation was “evolving,” with “delicate
matters” that he was managing “with discretion and responsibility,” and warned:
“There is no room for private statements.”

“I ask that you not act without
consideration and irresponsibly toward our ally in order to capture a moment of
glory,” Mr. Netanyahu said, according to someone who was there and spoke on the
condition of anonymity. “These statements do not serve the citizens of Israel.”

Israel has a great deal at stake in
the American debate. Beyond the threats by Syria and its allies that they would
retaliate against Israel for an American strike, Israel is gravely concerned
about America’s waning influence in the Middle East. Israel sees Syria as a
test case for Mr. Obama’s credibility in enforcing “red lines,” given his
promise to prevent Iran from developing a nuclear weapon.

At the same time, Israel has a
powerful American lobby with bipartisan strength that could be uniquely
positioned to help the White House shore up support in Congress.

Yet there were no outward signs on
Sunday that Israel would attempt to influence the outcome, and numerous experts
on the Israel-American relationship said it would be deeply dangerous to try.

“It would be a mistake to overplay
the Israeli interest,” said Itamar Rabinovich, who was Israel’s ambassador to
the United States and also its chief negotiator with Syria in the 1990s. “It’s
bad for Israel that the average American gets it into his or her mind that boys
are again sent to war for Israel. They have to be sent to war for America.”

Another former ambassador, Sallai
Meridor, who served in Washington during the Iraq war, said Israel should share
its analysis but not give advice, particularly if the debate breaks along party
lines, as often happened during the Bush years. “The line may be hard to see,
but you know if you crossed it,” Mr. Meridor said. “For a small nation like
Israel, bipartisan support is a strategic asset.”

Both Mr. Obama and his secretary of
state, John Kerry, have mentioned Israel’s needs as one justification for an
attack on Syria. But some in Washington have already raised the specter of
retaliatory missiles raining on Tel Aviv, as they did during the Persian Gulf
war, as a reason not to strike. Michael B. Oren, Israel’s current ambassador to
the United States, rebuffed that argument Sunday, saying in an interview,
“Nobody can allege or assume that because of us America should not act.” Beyond
that, Mr. Oren said, “the general disposition is not to be involved in this
vote.”

A spokesman for the American-Israel
Public Affairs Committee, the main pro-Israel lobby, said Sunday that the group
“won’t have comment for now.” Another advocate for Israel in Washington said
people were waiting to see the White House strategy for the vote and how the
debate unfolded before deciding what to do. Part of the hesitation comes from
Jerusalem’s ambivalence about what outcome it prefers in the Syrian civil war.

“The only thing that is clear is
that Israel will take the heat either way,” a senior Israeli government
official said, speaking on the condition of anonymity because of Mr.
Netanyahu’s directive. “If we remain on the sidelines, it will be seen as
defiant criticism of President Obama. And if we don’t, it will be seen as
interference. There is nothing we can do to come out clean.”

While Israel and its advocates
seemed paralyzed by Mr. Obama’s move, analysts here generally condemned the
decision to wait for Congressional approval, saying it weakened American
leadership in the Middle East and made it more likely that Mr. Netanyahu would
order Israeli military action against Iran on his own. Several experts said it
was a significant setback, after months in which Jerusalem and Washington had seemed
more in accord on the Iran question.

“The punch line is that the more
that Israel perceives the U.S. as hesitant, the more Israel will be pushed to
deal alone with the Iranians, something that the U.S. really did not want,”
said Michael Herzog, an Israel-based fellow of the Washington Institute for
Near East Policy. “People ask, ‘If this is the case on a relatively simple
thing like striking Syria, how will they act against Iran?’ It deepens the
question marks.”

google.com

Ari Shavit, a columnist for the left-leaning
daily newspaper Haaretz, said that Israel and others in the Middle East were
being left with a “feeling of orphans,” wondering “if there is still a reliable
parent in Washington who is really committed, who understands what’s going on
and who is willing to act.”

Dan Gillerman, a former Israeli
ambassador to the United Nations, attacked Mr. Obama’s speech announcing that
he would put the Syria question before Congress as “a very serious diplomatic
and political fiasco reminiscent of the Carter days,” and said the enemies of
Israel and the United States — especially in Tehran — were “gloating and
celebrating.”

“In Israel there is a lot of worry
about whether we can really count on the United States,” Mr. Gillerman said.
“The behavior of the U.S. and what it projects over the last few weeks has cast
a very dark shadow and very serious doubt over that.”